Sexism is candidate Clinton's primary opponent

Philly Inquier: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080123_Sexism_is_candidate_Clintons_primary_opponent.html

No one has called Barack Obama a witch.

No one has suggested John McCain is too ambitious.

No one has disparaged Mitt Romney for misting up.

No one has accused John Edwards of faking emotions.

No one has depicted Mike Huckabee as calculating.

No one has critiqued the pitch of Rudy Giuliani's voice.

No one says male presidential aspirants are cold or feisty or careless about their cleavage (or any other anatomical feature). If they tear up, or even - gasp! - cry, no one says men are too weak to run the country. If they blow a gasket (à la Bill Clinton), it's manly. If they blow off a question (classic Reagan), it's strategic.

But when a woman has a chance to win the presidency, all bets are off. It's no conspiracy; this is America.

*******

There is a double standard, and, with Clinton's candidacy, we see it in sharp relief. She is judged differently than her male competitors, and not just because she's a Clinton.

When she doesn't show emotion, she's cold. When she does, she's - what? - feminine? Soft? Un-commander-in-chief-like? Unless, of course, she's faking it, in which case she's calculating. When she's serious, she's humorless; if she laughs, she cackles. If she attacks, she's partisan. If she plays nice, she's acting. If she wears pantsuits, she's manly. If she shows a millimeter of cleavage, she's flirty.

She didn't leave her husband because she's too ambitious, or so the story goes. Then again, she drove him to cheat. And she rode the public's sympathy all the way to the Senate.

Earlier this year, Clinton was routinely diminished when pundits referred to her solely by her first name. When I asked one to explain, he said it was because her own campaign signs called her "Hillary." True. But when Lamar Alexander's signs proclaimed simply "Lamar!" the chattering class properly used his last name.

In many ways, it remains socially acceptable to be sexist. Whether that's because it's not always easily defined, or because women have been lulled into tolerating it, or because men still hold the keys to success is difficult to determine. Could it be that the men who dominate the airwaves and oversee most election coverage don't recognize the code words, that they honestly don't see the disparate treatment?

*********
whole lot more!

If Obama made a reference to being black in every one of his speeches people wouldnt hesitate to claim he was trying to use his race to his advantage, but he doesnt do that.

Hillary is always talking about becoming the first woman President.

Its her main selling point.

I be just as opposed to her if she were a man pushing the same ideas.

.

In fact, all other things being equal, given the choice between a male and female candidate, I'd pick the woman on general principles.

:thumbsup:

Does this writer listen to the criticisms of the other candidates?
I doubt it; when you close your mind, your ears and eyes are closed also.
This is gutless speculation, brought on by being a sheep.
Sure they didn't call Obama a witch, they called him a muslim coward.
The didn't refer to McCain as too ambitious, but as an opportunist.
Mitt Romney misting up??? Sure he did, and they call him a Ken Doll.
John Edwards with false emotions? They call Edwards a phony all the time.
Huckabee as calculating? Sure he does...
And the pitch of Giuliani's voice? Yeeks, I can't stand the sound of his whine!

This is old drivel, old old anti-feminist crap that we heard back in the '90s. Get something new.

I am sick and tired of being told that because I am a baby-boomer woman, I better vote for HIllary because she represents my interests. Sorry. I have a brain, and my interests are not partisan poltics as usualy. This logic is shallow, and non-democratic: If I should vote for HIllary because I am a woman, then all blacks should vote Obama, and all white southern men vote Edwards, and all Evangelicals vote Huckabee, and all Latter Day saints vote Romney, and all short men vote Kuchinich, and all war veterans vote McCain... and here we are, more divisiveness. NOT what we need right now.

It's time to get some original material, but I doubt that sheep can think straight.

What I say is this: If you are committed to HIllary, then be prepared for at least four more years of having her wagging finger in everyone's face, be prepared for the scolding school marm,
be prepared for Bill to be jumping over every boundary to get his way, be prepared for more blame, more partisanship, more suspicion.

I approve what Hillary says, but not how she says it; it's her methodology that gets me. And all the baggage that she drags around with her. OUr country cannot take more of this old school politicking.
We need to move on...

:thumbsup:

It goes a lot deeper than that, by far, like corporatism, war stance, holding up Ryan White funds until NYC got its former share (instead of insisting that the formula be revisited ASAP for the SE and PR and VI), etc. ad naus. I prefer a candidate who doesn't have to have their statments "interpreted" by staff to tell the audience what it is they believe they want to hear. Feinstein-Leahy nay vote on cluster bombs was the absolute last straw for me. What had turned into distaste is now open disgust.

When your candidate is a right wing corporate warmonger pretending to speak for Democrats, the serious marks against her make your special claim to sympathies trivial and, frankly, childish.

Iraq. Outsourcing. Taxes. Deregulation.

These are Hillary Clinton's contributions to Bushism. This is why she's repulsive and no one left of Bush will vote for her.

Since when? Her defense industry financial backers are now feminist? Do tell. Murdoch and Penn also?

No, they call Obama a Muslim and not patriotic enough

No, they call John McCain too old

No, they disparge Romney for being a cult member and a phony

No, one has accussed John Edwards of faking emotions because he’s a lawyer,
His whole spring poverty in America tour this spring smacked of phony emotions

No one has depicted Mike Huckabee as calculating. If they haven’t they should have, his shift from center too right was pretty obvious in South Carolina.

No one has critiqued the pitch of Rudy Giuliani's voice. Because Giuliani is running on the wrong issue. He has squandered front runner status only if he had spit on the Pope could he have screwed his campaign up more.


“No one says male presidential aspirants are cold or feisty or careless about their cleavage (or any other anatomical feature). If they tear up, or even - gasp! - cry, no one says men are too weak to run the country. If they blow a gasket (à la Bill Clinton), it's manly. If they blow off a question (classic Reagan), it's strategic.”

Get off it, every candidate gets lampooned, such is politics, Johm McCain has a bad temper, Romney is aloof, Huckabee has no experience, Obama is too young.

I don’t support Hillary for the following reasons,

No one says Hillary was too female to take donations from AIPAC and say no options were off the table in dealing with Iran.

No one says Hillary was too female to take donations from Rupert Murdoch

No one says Hillary was too female when she went to Selma and used terms such as y’all and Illinois / New Yorker saying y’all and then describe he (we) meaning her MLK and the assembled populace overcame racism.

I think America needs real change, not real bad acting, I don’t care what race, what sex , what church, what sexual preference, vegan or carnivore. To run an article on poor Hillary picked on because she’s a woman is lame.

One could write a similarly accurate piece on every candidate.